United States v. Falcone

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation311 U.S. 205,61 S.Ct. 204,85 L.Ed. 128
Docket NumberNo. 42,42
PartiesUNITED STATES v. FALCONE et al
Decision Date09 December 1940

Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and O. John Rogge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Mr. Daniel H. Prior, of Albany, N.Y., for respondents Salvatore Falcone and Joseph Falcone.

Mr. Roger O. Baldwin, of Syracuse, N.Y., for respondent Henry Alberico.

Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented by this record is whether one who sells materials with knowledge that they are intended for use or will be used in the production of illicit distilled spirits may be convicted as a co-conspirator with a distiller who conspired with others to distill the spirits in violation of the revenue laws.

Respondents were indicted with sixty-three others in the Northern District of New York for conspiring to violate the revenue laws by the operation of twenty-two illicit stills in the vicinity of Utica, New York. The case was submitted to the jury as to twenty-four defendants, of whom the five respondents and sixteen operators of stills were convicted. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the conviction of the five respondents on the ground that as there was no evidence that respondents were themselves conspirators, the sale by them of materials, knowing that they would be used by others in illicit distilling, was not sufficient to establish that respondents were guilty of the conspiracy charged. 109 F.2d 579. We granted certiorari, 310 U.S. 620, 60 S.Ct. 1075, 84 L.Ed. 1393, to resolve an asserted conflict of the decision below with those of Courts of Appeals in other circuits. Simpson v. United States, 4 Cir., 11 F.2d 591; Pattis v. United States, 9 Cir., 17 F.2d 562; Borgia v. United States, 9 Cir., 78 F.2d 550; Marino v. United States, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 691, 113 A.L.R. 975; see Backun v. United States, 4 Cir., 112 F.2d 635. Compare Young v. United States, 5 Cir., 48 F.2d 26.

All of respondents were jobbers or distributors who, during the period in question, sold sugar, yeast or cans some of which found their way into the possession and use of some of the distiller defendants. The indictment while charging generally that all the defendants were parties to the conspiracy did not allege specifically that any of respondents had knowledge of the conspiracy, but it did allege that respondents Alberico and Nole brothers sold the materials mentioned knowing that they were to be used in illicit distilling. The Court of Appeals reviewing the evidence thought, in the case of some of the respondents, that the jury might take it that they were knowingly supplying the distillers. As to Nicholas Nole, whose case it considered most doubtful, it thought that his equivocal conduct 'was as likely to have come from a belief that it was a crime to sell the yeast and the cans to distillers as from being in fact any further involved in their business'. (109 F.2d 582.) But it assumed for purposes of decision that all furnished supplies which they knew ultimately reached and were used by some of the distillers. Upon this assumption it said, 'In the light of all this, it is apparent that the first question is whether the seller of goods, in themselves innocent, becomes a conspirator with—or, what is in substance the same thing, an abettor of—the buyer because he knows that the buyer means to use the goods to commit a crime.' And it concluded that merely because respondent did not forego a 'normally lawful activity, of the fruits of which he (knew) that others (were making) an unlawful use' he is not guilty of a conspiracy.

The Government does not argue here the point which seems to be implicit in the question raised by its petition for certiorari, that conviction of conspiracy can rest on proof alone of knowingly supplying an illicit distiller, who is not conspiring with others. In such a case, as the Government concedes, the act of supplying or some other proof must import an agreement or concert of action between buyer and seller, which admittedly is not present here. Cf. Gebardi v. United States, 287 U.S. 112, 121, 53 S.Ct. 35, 37, 77 L.Ed. 206, 84 A.L.R. 370; Di Bonaventura v. United States, 4 Cir., 15 F.2d 494. But the Government does contend that one who with knowledge of a conspiracy to distill illicit spirits sells materials to a conspirator knowing that they will be used in the distilling, is himself guilty of the conspiracy. It is said that he is, either because his knowledge combined with his action makes him a participant in the agreement which is the conspiracy, or what is the same thing he is a principal in the conspiracy as an aider or abettor by virtue of § 332 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 550, 18 U.S.C.A. § 550, which provides: 'Whoever directly commits any act constituting an offense defined in any law of the United States, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is a principal.'

The argument, the merits of which we do not consider, overlooks the fact that the opinion below proceeded on the assumption that the evidence showed only that respondents or some of them knew that the materials sold would be used in the distillation of illicit spirits, and fell short of showing respondents' participation in the conspiracy or that they knew of it. We did not bring the case here to review the evidence, but we are satisfied that the evidence on which the Government relies does not do more than show knowledge by respondents that the materials would be used for illicit distilling if it does as much in the case of some.1 In the case of Alberico as in the case of Nicholas Nole, the jury could have found that he knew that one of their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
346 cases
  • Com. v. Beneficial Finance Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 4 Noviembre 1971
    ...of it before he is liable as a member.' Commonwealth v. Beal, 314 Mass. 210, 222, 50 N.E.2d 14, 21. Accord, United States v. Falcone, 311 U.S. 205, 61 S.Ct. 204, 85 L.Ed. 128; Thomas v. United States, 57 F.2d 1039 (10th Although the need for concerted action or active participation requires......
  • State v. W. U. Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey County Court
    • 2 Abril 1951
    ...and the overt act may or may not in itself be criminal and may be relatively insignificant. U.S. v. Falcone, Page 205 311 U.S. 205, 61 S.Ct. 204, 85 L.Ed. 128 (1940), affirming 2 Cir., 109 F.2d 579; State v. O'Brien, 136 N.J.L. 118, 54 A.2d 806 (Sup.Ct.1947). It is wholly unimportant whethe......
  • U.S. v. Petrov, 954
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 5 Octubre 1984
    ...distribution by others, but even activity of that sort is on the borderline of criminal conduct. Compare United States v. Falcone, 311 U.S. 205, 61 S.Ct. 204, 85 L.Ed. 128 (1940) (supplier of sugar and yeast to illegal liquor distillers not guilty of bootlegging conspiracy), with Direct Sal......
  • U.S. v. Garcia-Rosa, GARCIA-ROS
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 2 Noviembre 1988
    ...of conspiracy for providing supplies to a conspiracy if the defendant did not know about the existence of the conspiracy. Falcone, 311 U.S. at 210, 61 S.Ct. at 206-207; see Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703, 709, 63 S.Ct. 1265, 1268, 87 L.Ed. 1674 (1943). Moreover, knowledge o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • FEDERAL CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • 1 Julio 2021
    ...(6th Cir. 1997); United States v. Reynolds, 919 F.2d435, 439 (7th Cir. 1990).52. 18 U.S.C. § 371; see, e.g., United States v. Falcone, 311 U.S. 205, 210–11 (1940) (“Those having noknowledge of the conspiracy are not conspirators.”); United States v. Nguyen, 493 F.3d 613, 618 (5th Cir. 2007)......
  • Federal Criminal Conspiracy
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • 1 Julio 2023
    ...(6th Cir. 1997); United States v. Reynolds, 919 F.2d 435, 439 (7th Cir. 1990). 51. 18 U.S.C. § 371; see, e.g. , United States v. Falcone, 311 U.S. 205, 210–11 (1940) (“Those having no knowledge of the conspiracy are not conspirators.”). 52. See United States v. Hassan, 578 F.3d 108, 123 (2d......
  • Federal Criminal Conspiracy
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • 1 Julio 2022
    ...(6th Cir. 1997); United States v. Reynolds, 919 F.2d 435, 439 (7th Cir. 1990). 55. 18 U.S.C. § 371; see, e.g. , United States v. Falcone, 311 U.S. 205, 210–11 (1940) (“Those having no knowledge of the conspiracy are not conspirators.”); United States v. Nguyen, 493 F.3d 613, 618 (5th Cir. 2......
  • Section 1 of The Sherman Act
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Model Jury Instructions in Civil Antitrust Cases
    • 8 Diciembre 2016
    ...become admissible against all as declarations or acts of co-conspirators in aid of the conspiracy.”); United States v. Falcone, 311 U.S. 205, 210-11 (1940) (“Those having no knowledge of the conspiracy are not conspirators; and one who without more furnishes supplies to an illicit distiller......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT